He was a firefighter. Until Texas sheriffs destroyed his life.

Thomas, a Texas firefighter, was driving in Denton County when he was suddenly pulled over by local sheriffs. Despite being completely sober, he quickly found himself railroaded into a DUI charge by police, who claimed he appeared "slow" and "heavy footed." Body camera footage has since revealed that the arresting officers even commented during the arrest that they did not believe Thomas was drunk. So why was Thomas arrested, and what does this reveal about the capricious nature of police power? Police Accountability Report examines the evidence.

Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. To do so, we don't just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. Today, we will achieve that goal by showing you this video of yet another questionable DUI arrest, a video that catches officers in shocking unguarded moments, making admissions about the whole process of DUI arrests that raises troubling questions about what aspect of public safety they’re actually intended to address.

But before we get started, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you. You can email us tips privately at [email protected] and share your evidence. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram, or @EyesonPolice on Twitter. Of course, you can always message me directly @TayasBaltimore on Twitter and Facebook. Please share, like, and comment. It really can help our guests, and it helps us get the word out. And as you know, I really do read your comments and appreciate them. We have a Patreon to donate for Accountability Reports. So, if this type of work is important to you, please help us keep doing it.

Okay, now we’ve gotten all that out of the way. We all know that drunk driving or driving while impaired is a serious and consequential crime. In 2021, roughly 13,000 people died as a result of motorists operating under the influence. As a result of this tragic toll, authorities have passed laws that have profound consequences for people who are charged with it. They’ve also rolled out federal grants to incentivize catching DUIs that encourages officers to rack up arrests and thwart people who insist on driving under the influence. All of this is allocable, and certainly no one disagrees with the underlying goal, public safety. Just like any power conferred upon the government, it also requires vigilance to make sure it is not abused. The DUI arrest we will show you today reveals just how important that task is.

The story starts in Lakewood Village in Denton County, Texas in April 2021. There, a lifelong firefighter, Thomas, he does not want us to use his last name, was driving home from work. That's when police started following him and eventually pulled him over. From the outset, even though he had not exhibited any conceivable type of erratic driving. The officer began questioning him about being impaired for reasons, that at that moment remained unclear. Let's watch.

Male Officer:

How much you had to drink today? What have you taken today? You taken prescription, narcotics, or anything like that? No? Okay. Are you prescribed anything?

Thomas:

Actually, I’m prescribed Adderall with medication.

Male Officer:

Okay. What time you took that?

Thomas:

I think it was today earlier [inaudible 00:03:18].

Male Officer:

[inaudible 00:03:18] at work? What time did you work today?

Thomas:

From 7:00 to 3:00.

Male Officer:

Okay. 7:00 to 3:00? Where at?

Thomas:

Downtown Dallas. I work for the fire department. Right now, I’m on light duty.

Male Officer:

Okay. Okay.

Thomas:

For my eye, I had a detached retina a few years ago, and then I had five surgeries since then. It's now starting to plow down [inaudible 00:03:47].

Male Officer:

Okay.

Thomas:

Anyway, they won't let me work in the field.

Male Officer:

I gotcha.

That's a better excuse for his eye. He's still acting kind of odd. You think he's normal, or do you think he's just-

Female Officer:

He's lethargic.

Male Officer:

Lethargic, mm-hmm.

Female Officer:

Slow-moving. Slow-talking.

Male Officer:

Very. Do you think he possibly could be intoxicated?

Female Officer:

Maybe.

Male Officer:

You want to run him through FSFTs?

Female Officer:

I can.

Male Officer:

Even if he has only good eye, we can in theory still do HGN on him.

Female Officer:

Tell him to cover up his bad eye?

Male Officer:

We’re going to let him run with it open-

Female Officer:

Okay.

Male Officer:

… because even to do HGN, you work the good eye out, you’re still going to see signs of that.

Female Officer:

Okay.

Male Officer:

He mentioned Adderall. Adderall's a stimulant. So, we may not see HGN on a stimulant. We should see a lot of other stuff.

Female Officer:

He's acting so lethargic. You think it's…

Male Officer:

From the indications of a stimulant? He's very rigid.

Female Officer:

Yeah.

Male Officer:

Like very weird. A lot of body movement, almost like he sort of moved everything out of his wallet and just kind of maneuver in general. Go ahead and pull him out. We’ll just talk to him outside of the car for a little bit. He told us he's on light duty because of his eye. Everything else should be fine. We’ll see what comes of that.

Female Officer:

Okay.

Male Officer:

Go get him then.

Taya Graham:

Now, in the sworn affidavit, the officer said Thomas had been speeding, which Thomas denies. But he also made a somewhat curious claim about Thomas's behavior, which is odd to say the least. He wrote that Thomas appeared "slow" when he handed over his ID. He also noted that he made exaggerated movements while he responded to the officer's demand. It's a somewhat puzzling take on Thomas's behavior because the video tells a different story. Take a look and decide for yourself.

Thomas:

No, my right eye. It's your left.

Female Officer:

Yeah, my left. Yeah, your right.

Male Officer:

What happened to your eye again? I only caught part of that.

Thomas:

I had a detached retina, and then the subsequent surgeries have led to… Its kind of got a blue haze around there. And so, it's just hard to see through this eye. Sometimes it gets kind of irritated and it turns red. I don't know if it is now, but-

Male Officer:

It looks a little tender right now.

Female Officer:

Yeah.

Thomas:

Is it really? This one is-

Male Officer:

It's clear.

Thomas:

… clear, okay. Yeah, so.

Male Officer:

Well, when's the last time you said you took your medication today?

Thomas:

Like 3:00, 2:00-

Male Officer:

About 3:00 today?

Thomas:

2:00 or something, 1:00.

Male Officer:

I just wanted to ensure you’re safe to operate a vehicle, just giving kind of the [inaudible 00:06:29] so far. I just want to make sure you’re safe to operate your truck. We’re run you through just a few standardized field tests, and we’ll kind of go from there.

Taya Graham:

This, at the very least, questionable rendering of Thomas's actions led to what's known as a field sobriety test. This test was to say the least a bit surreal, a series of instructions that seemed at once contradictory, and at the same time hard to understand what exactly they were intended to prove. Just a note before we watch, Texas has several tests as part of the field sobriety assessment that you will see during this video. They are as follows, a leg turn test where the person has to walk in a straight line, heel-to-toe, turn, and walk back. The one leg stand test, where you raise one foot and stand in place for 30 seconds. And, the modified Rhomberg balance test, which requires the subject to bend their neck, close their eyes, and count to 30. Finally, the finger-to-nose test, which is self-explanatory. Take a look.

Female Officer:

All right, look at the tip of the pen. Don't move your head. You’re just going to look at the pen. The next test, stand over here in the grass real quick. Imagine there is an inch-long line right here in front of you. One foot on the line. You put your right foot right in front of your left foot, with her heels touching your toes. Your arms down by your side. You’re going to take nine heel-to-toe steps forward.

Thomas:

I did.

Female Officer:

All right, look down.

Thomas:

It's sloppy isn't it?

Female Officer:

You said your legs feel weak?

Thomas:

Yeah.

Female Officer:

Okay, we probably got one more test for you okay? Arms down by your side. You’re going to keep your arms just like that. In excess, you’re going to raise one foot, either one, approximately six inches above the ground with your foot parallel to the ground.

Thomas:

Okay. One thousand one. One thousand two. One thousand three. One thousand four. One thousand 15, 16.

Female Officer:

Okay, you’re good.

Male Officer:

I just have maybe one or two more I’d like you to run through real quick.

Thomas:

Are you going to tell me when 30 seconds are-

Male Officer:

No, you’re going to tell me when 30 seconds is up.

Thomas:

Okay.

Male Officer:

To the best of your knowledge. Do you understand that? Okay. How long was that?

Thomas:

30 seconds or so.

Male Officer:

36. Pretty close. When I tell you, I’m going to pick a hand. I’m going to say, "Right." You’re going to bring your right finger up and touch the tip of your finger to the tip of your nose. Right. Left. Right. Left. Left. And right. Go on and have a seat for me right there on the bed of your truck for a second.

Taya Graham:

Now I want you to think about what you just witnessed. Not just how Thomas performed, but how bizarre and counterintuitive the test was. Even more important, the conclusions the officers reached based upon Thomas responded. I’ll read them as you watch what unfolds on the screen. "Thomas was heavy-footed as he walked," the officer wrote. "During the walk-and-turn, Thomas's actions were exaggerated and he forgot instructions. During the hand-to-nose, Thomas used the pad of his finger." And so, as you can see, this process led to officers being able to charge Thomas with a DUI, but not before having a very revealing conversation captured on body camera that calls the entire series of events we’ve just witnessed into question, an admission that these officers probably never thought would see the light of day. But we are going to show you now. Just watch.

Female Officer:

Miscounting steps. Turned wrong. Stopped on walking. Used arms.

Male Officer:

He stepped out of position briefly during the [inaudible 00:10:07] phase. On the Rhomberg, I was to estimate 30 seconds to kind of see where the clock's at. He came in at 36 seconds, which is right on the edge of the window of error. The error is 25 to 35. I told him to close his eyes, watching it. His eyes were flooding like crazy, and his body's super rigid. He does have a messed up eye. He's been on light duty. He has a detached retina. I asked him, I’m like, "What else besides your eye hurts? Anything else?" "No, just fine." I gave him every opportunity to explain to me legs not working right, arms not working right. He came out of the truck looking good, walking pretty decent. A little heavy-footed, but he wasn't stumbling out. Do you believe he's intoxicated?

Female Officer:

I believe he's unable to drive from whatever he has. I don't know the alcohol-

Male Officer:

That a medical emergency? Or are we talking about intoxication?

Female Officer:

Intoxicated on something, but I don't think alcohol.

Male Officer:

Do you think we have a medical emergency here?

Female Officer:

No.

Male Officer:

No, so this is not a medical emergency. Is he normal or do you believe he's possibly intoxicated under something?

Female Officer:

Yeah, I think he's intoxicated on something.

Male Officer:

Okay, we’ll try to get [inaudible 00:11:02]. I don't think it's alcohol. I don't see any signs of alcohol. I see some signs of a narcotic that he admitted to. So, we’re going to go that route. There's also the dog in the car. We’re going to have to [inaudible 00:11:12].

Female Officer:

[inaudible 00:11:12] or just go?

Male Officer:

We’ll cross that bridge [inaudible 00:11:17]. Let's first get him taken care of, and then we’ll address everything else.

Taya Graham:

That's right, even though the officers wrote a statement of probable cause that Thomas was guilty of driving under the influence, they admitted on camera, on camera no less, that he was not drunk. The only substance in his system they suspected was a legally prescribed non-narcotic adult deficit attention disorder medication known as Adderall. For that, without an apparently legally sufficient justification, Thomas was arrested.

Female Officer:

[inaudible 00:11:48].

Male Officer:

Our decision's made.

Female Officer:

So go up and tell him, "More tests. Put your hands behind your back?"

Male Officer:

Go that route if you’d like to. Or you can tell him point-blank… I’ve done it both ways depending on whether they’re engaging. If they’re [inaudible 00:11:56] compliant, I’ll tell them "Hey, be advised that you’re placed under arrested [inaudible 00:11:59]." If I don't believe that's going to work, I’ll play the tricker. I’ll be "One more test. Turn around for me," and that's what I’ll do. I gave the guy that wanted to do that. I think we can go that direction with him.

Female Officer:

Sir, we are putting you under arrest for driving while intoxicated. We believe that you’re unsafe to drive. Stand up. Put your hands behind your back.

Male Officer:

Turn around.

Female Officer:

Turn around.

Male Officer:

Do you have anybody at home who could come up here and pick up your dog and possibly your truck?

Thomas:

No.

Male Officer:

No one at home?

Thomas:

Nope.

Male Officer:

Okay.

Female Officer:

Do you have a friend that could get your dog?

Thomas:

I don't know.

Female Officer:

Can't think of anybody?

Thomas:

No, I’d have to make some phone calls.

Male Officer:

All right, like I said, if you’re willing to give me somebody to call, a person I can call myself, if not, I’m going to have to call my Animal Control officer and they’re going to pick up your dog, and they’re going to put him in our shelter for the night. I’m trying to avoid that option.

Thomas:

I haven't had a drink in over 30 years.

Male Officer:

I didn't say you were drinking, sir.

Thomas:

I haven't had a drug in over 30 years. Where's the Animal Control?

Male Officer:

He works for my agency. I’ll have to call him to come over with me.

Thomas:

Where is he?

Male Officer:

It's just in Denton. About five minutes from our jail.

Taya Graham:

But even this highly questionable arrest was not the end of Thomas's ordeal. That's because the police, after admitting he was not drunk, filed a complaint against him at his job, which I’m showing on the screen now. That complaint led to an Internal Affairs investigation which then prompted his employer, a local fire department, to let him go. That's not all the problems with this arrest, because we have been investigating and digging deeper into both the department and the county where it occurred. What we have uncovered is that there was more behind-the-scenes driving police to make this arrest than is readily apparent. That evidence shows just how far astray American policing can be from it's overarching goal to keep us safe.

So soon, we will be talking to Thomas about what he has endured since his arrest and how it has changed his life. But first, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, whose been reaching out to police and as already mentioned, investigating the motive that may have been driving police to charge Thomas. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

Stephen, before we get into the behind-the-scenes maneuvering regarding this case, I want to do something kind of different. I want to administer a field sobriety test to you, just to make a point of how tricky these tests actually are, and show that even in less stressful circumstances they can be difficult to pass.

Stephen Janis:

What? No.

Taya Graham:

Okay, you have two choices. Do the test, or stay outside.

Stephen Janis:

You know what, Taya, I haven't had anything to drink, but still, I don't want to do a test.

Taya Graham:

All night.

Stephen Janis:

Fair enough.

Taya Graham:

But first, have you had anything to drink?

Stephen Janis:

No. No, I haven't anything to drink. No. Taya, nope I have drank a freaking thing.

Taya Graham:

Now first, I want you to walk in a straight line by pacing one foot in front of the other, heel-to-toe, then turn around and walk back with your hands at your sides.

Okay, not too good. Let's try balancing on one foot for 30 seconds and don't use your hands.

Not too good, Stephen. Last chance. Touch your hand to your nose with your eyes close, left then right, then right then left.

All right, that's not bad. One out of three. Unfortunately, despite your claims to the contrary, I’m going to have to refer you to the nearest law enforcement agency for reporting while intoxicated.

Stephen Janis:

You know what, I spend so much time outside, I don't care. Refer me to anyone who will give me a place to sleep for the night. So, fine.

Taya Graham:

But we’ll put that on hold for a moment. So, you’ve been looking into the Denton Sheriff's Department and their DUI program. What have you found?

Stephen Janis:

As you can see what I’m showing you on the screen now, Denton incentivizes DUI. They have this whole program. One of the major parts of it that we found was that they actually incentivize officers to make arrests. They have a small section where they say they want to give them awards. So clearly, Denton has some incentivization of DUI arrests that's in black and white, and you can see it right there.

Taya Graham:

Did the Denton Sheriff have any comment about this arrest, and why Thomas was charged? What was it that you dug up in Denton County that might explain why police were so aggressive?

Stephen Janis:

I sent an email to the prosecutor, because that was my main concern, why did they even continue with this case when there was no sign of alcohol and the officers admitted on body camera they should have dropped it right away? What I did find is very interesting. Number one, Denton takes in about $2 million in fines from traffic arrests, traffic enforcement. One thing I found in their budget that's really interesting, they said "Fines are a very important source of revenue." So, just do the math. You have one thing in their sort of police procedure book that says, "Hey, we need to incentivize arrests." You have something in the budget that says, "We need fines." Put two and two together, you add it up, you get really crazy enforcement like I think we saw in this body camera footage. That perhaps explains why they did what they did.

Taya Graham:

And now, I’m joined by the man who was the subject of the unrelenting scrutiny of the Denton County Sheriffs to discuss how the arrest has impacted his life, and the status of the case going forward. Thomas, thank you so much for joining me.

Thomas:

Thank you, Taya. I love your program.

Taya Graham:

Thank you, Thomas. I really appreciate that. First, you mentioned something to me that could not be seen on the dash camera footage. How did the officers initially follow and approach you?

Thomas:

I’m coming up over a bridge and once I kind of reached the top and come over the top, I noticed there's a car sticking in the lane. The front of this vehicle is sitting in the lane. When I work as a fireman, once you see that you assume it's a wreck. We look for wrecks all the time. You get called out and you see cars all turned around, facing the wrong way on the freeway. That's what it reminded me of. And so I just kind of tapped my brakes and slowed down, but I continued on and that's when I noticed ah, it's a police car. They just sat there. They didn't move.

As soon as I passed them, I could see them real aggressively spin around, because they were facing me where I passed them. They do a U-turn and come right up on on me real close. And so I thought wow, they’re going to pull me over. Well, he didn't pull me over. He was just following me. When he hits his lights, I pull over. I’m ready to be pulled over because they’re still behind me. Now he's not right up on me like he was at the beginning, but it almost felt like he was trying to get me to do something, or scare me, or something.

Taya Graham:

When the officers pulled you over, what did they say was the reason?

Thomas:

All they said was, they asked me for my identification, driver's license, and my insurance or whatever. While I’m getting that she said, "Do you know fast you were going?" Or she said, "Do you know the speed limit?" I said, "I think it's 50. Is that right?" She goes, "Yeah, it's 50." I said, "Well how fast was I going?" She goes, "You were going a little faster than that." I’m thinking okay, a little faster than that. I’m thinking, well are they going to give me a ticket for going a little faster than that? What is happening? Five miles an hour over the speed limit or something like that? Now, what I was thinking at the time was a little over the speed limit. That's it. How this would turn into an arrest, I’m just thinking this is… Blew me away.

Taya Graham:

Okay, so the officers asked you to pull over to a second location, and you were polite and compliant while the officers asked you very personal questions. Did you have any idea of what was going to happen next?

Thomas:

When he said that I look really lethargic and sunked, and all that, just from when I handed him my driver's license, that was only about 30 seconds, maybe a minute. That's how it was started. Then when the second time they told me, he starts asking about medications and medical history, and all this stuff. I’m thinking, I know the HIPAA laws for privacy. At the same time, I’m thinking, well I understand they’re police officers. If someone's a diabetic or something, they’re going into a coma, and I’ve seen this happen where they’re on the freeway and literally one time a car turned around on the freeway going the opposite way. I get it.

This was a diabetic who was going through that, and had lost their consciousness more or less, but was able to still drive the car. Ended up crashing and we got her out of the car or whatever. But, I get it. I just went ahead and answered those personal medical questions, but before that even happened I was offering to them, because of my eye, I had this issue where it's blue now. I don't know if you can see it, but there's a blue haze over it. If you ever looked at my mugshot, you can see that that is significant enough that you can't even see my pupil very well. You would have to look real hard. You’d at least have to a pen light and shine it in there to see my pupil. If you were looking for a reaction.

Well, they never did check my pupils. They checked my gaze. They’re looking for the horizontal gaze. That's not checking pupils. Pupils, you’re going to check for a reaction. Kind of why I said more than I should have, because looking back now I shouldn't even have opened my mouth. I should have just told them "I don't talk to police."

Taya Graham:

Now, I apologize for having to bring this up, but you have two health conditions that could affect your responses on the DUI test. You’re hard of hearing in one ear, and you have a detached retina in one eye. How do you think that impacted your reactions to the field sobriety tests? And how do you think this impacted the officers’ response to you?

Thomas:

He brings it up that I talk extremely slow. He said it quite a few times in the body cam footage. I’m thinking, I can't even understand this guy. I checked just one small clip, he said seven words in one second. They were all like [inaudible 00:23:37]. As I was watching on the replay, I’m thinking yeah, I don't talk that fast, but I’m not sure I talk that slowly either. But he kept bringing that up. The thing is about me hearing them, that affected it too.

It also, because it's a neuroma, it's a tumor actually, so it affects your balance as well. I haven't had really issues with it, but watching the replay on the video… That's why I was so surprised. I can't do this because I was flopping around trying to balance on one leg. Now, I did it, but I was having to balance like I’m on a high wire or something. Anyway, the point is, is that yes, my hearing affected me understanding him, and he's picking up every little detail. He's looking for anything. If I asked him or repeat something, he turned that into kind of like "There's something wrong with him." Be that as it may, it's clear to me. They wanted a DWI from the word go.

Taya Graham:

So you complied with the field sobriety test. Were you surprised to discover how stringently they were judging you? Were you surprised by their comments?

Thomas:

I wasn't surprised what she said because she's doing this for the first time. But if she saw a drunk person doing these tests, she might have a different viewpoint of the whole thing. I am stone-cold sober, and I’m actually very agile. So, I don't know if my hearing or my ear was better… I had that tumor treated, and I don't think it's gotten worse, but my balance was off. Yeah, I can pick out stuff, but he had her looking every little thing. It was just sudden. I was not prepared for it. In your mind, you think this easy, but when you’re doing it, it's a little different. I probably should practice my DWI field sobriety tests every time I leave the house because if that's what determines if I’m intoxicated or not, if they send my blood to Austin, Texas and it takes over 10 years to get back the results, then they’re going to charge me and convict me if they want. The fact that he keeps calling this… The medication he keeps calling it, a prescription narcotic, it is not a narcotic.

Taya Graham:

How long were you in jail, and what was your experience like? What were the exact charges?

Thomas:

I was charged with DWI. I got to the jail probably… I think the video started about 6:00 PM. I got to the jail about 7:00 PM. I was there until 3:30 in the afternoon the next day. I had to go to an arraignment and make my plea. I had no access to a lawyer. I had no access to a phone. I couldn't call anyone. Which surprised me. Not only that, but I was on my way home to get something to eat when this started, and so I was already hungry. Then we get this little sandwich thing, two pieces of white bread and a piece of bologna at about 11:00. So, I hadn't eaten since 7:00 in the morning or something. And then we got another one at about 4:00 in the morning, the same thing, two pieces of white bread and a piece of bologna. They’re already punishing you for nothing. They made up their mind before they pull you over, or the initial stop that they’re going to take you in. Don't you need more evidence than just somebody looks lethargic?

Taya Graham:

Despite the difficulty in being arrested, separated from your pet, and having them taken to Animal Control, there were other consequences. You almost missed your father's funeral because of this. And it cost you your job, and impacted your finances, right?

Thomas:

I had already been on light duty because of my eye. I would need a cornea transplant to get my eye fixed. The fire department only gives you so long to be on light duty before they turn you loose and no more pay. If they have another job, I believe they’re obligated to you offer you another job. So, they sent me to go work in Communications as a dispatcher. I was in training to become a dispatcher at the time. Because of the DWI, I was no longer allowed on the floor of the dispatch center. Because I was no longer allowed on the floor of the dispatch center, they ended up giving me a letter "You can retire now or go work in another department in the city," or by then I already knew that once I’d been charged, I go to tell someone, "You wouldn't believe what happened. I got charged with a DWI. I don't even drink. I haven't in 33 years." I never heard of someone getting a DWI that doesn't even drink.

Taya Graham:

You mentioned something to me that stood out, because it's an impact that isn't measured. That is, people often aren't believed when they say that they are innocent, and that being charged and arrested can be very isolating. Can you talk about that?

Thomas:

People start distancing themselves from you a little bit. I’ve got friends that didn't care, but at the same time, that was my family. The whole fire department, it's a big department and it's a good department. We’ve got some incredible people working there, and I had some really close friends that were like family. So, leaving was, although I had 30 years already, leaving was going to be difficult. I knew it. But leaving like that was kind of… It wasn't really what I had hoped for.

Taya Graham:

Because of the legal entanglement, you almost missed saying goodbye to your father before he died.

Thomas:

The issue with my father was, when he passed away, just before he passed away, I had to call my bail bonds people. If you leave the county you’re supposed to call them. I called them and they seemed kind of resistant to me leaving. I had to just tell them, "I’m going anyway." You could hear them on the phone, kind of in the background going "Whoa." You know, they could have theoretically arrested me for doing that without their permission. This is happening before he died. My sister called me up and said, "Dad's passing away. He might not make it until tomorrow." So I’m trying to throw everything together and go, and I had to call the bail bonds people, and they’re going to resist? Come on. I hadn't done anything, but I haven't been convicted either. So it's like you’re already convicting me. You’re treating me like I’m a criminal already.

Taya Graham:

You told me you were worried about your dog. In the video, you can even hear the dog whimpering as police take you away. How much did this ordeal cost you? It cost you your job, but there were out-of-pocket costs, right?

Thomas:

First of all, the bail. Check this out, they say "Well, we need to get to your credit card to pay the bail." There's a phone on the wall and there's a list of bail bond agencies, and the phone only goes to them. You couldn't call anyone else except collect. Sign a release, and they take my credit. Well, they took the cash out of my wallet. I had $80.00 in my wallet. They gave me a debit card. Come to find out, there's no money on it at all. Instead of giving me the $80.00 cash back, they gave me the debit card. There's no money on it. It has no value. I had no access to a phone.

The next morning, I wanted to call my employer. The employer at their jail should have access to right there through a main line of some kind called a dispatch center in Dallas and tell them, "Hey Tom's up in jail in Denton," just to let them know. Because I’m supposed to be at work now. I pay bail for $1,000.00. They took it off my credit card. That was the first one. Then I went to get a lawyer. I asked random, "What do you do when this happens?" And the lawyer cost me $3,300.00. Then to get my truck back the next day, to get my truck it cost $470.00. For one night overnight. Then I had to get my dog, which cost me… He had to stay in the pound for two nights because I couldn't get him out in time. I had heard horror stories in the past, so I’m thinking they’re going to see him, he looks ferocious, and they’re going to strangle him with one of those ropes or something.

The way that deputy was acting, there's no telling… To me, I’m thinking there's no telling this guy has no conscious, because he's just deliberately ruining my life. For nothing.

Taya Graham:

I have quite a bit to say about the arrest of Thomas, little of it having to do with the usual complaints about law enforcement that seem to, in my opinion, limit the debate over the broader structural issues that prompts the type of arrests we have witnessed in this story. As I’ve said before, our fixation on the particulars of law enforcement, i.e. bad cops and bad arrests, often limits our ability to critique the justifications that empower them. What do I mean? Well, let's drill down into the details. Not of the arrest itself, but the actual paperwork used to facilitate it. What I mean is, let's take a look at some of the details of how cops are enabled to make these kinds of arrests that at least on the surface seem hard to justify.

As we do, I want you to hold a question in your head that hopefully when I’m done you’ll be able to answer. That question is simply, why are cops empowered with making arrests by just using adjectives? In other words, since when did we bestow the right to put us in a cage solely based on their subjective interpretation of our behavior? I mean, how many times have we had police apologists say, when confronted with police brutality that, "Cops aren't social workers, and police aren't worried about your feelings. They enforce the law." It said simple, "You either broke it or you didn't." Well, apparently based on the form used to turn Thomas into a criminal, cops are actually very perceptive clinical psychologists. I wish I were kidding, but I am not. Just take a look at the form given to Denton Police to assess a DUI that I am showing you on the screen now. It lists, and I’m not kidding, a series of adjectival descriptions to justify charging a motorist with a DUI.

I just want you to ponder this for a second. The flexibility this list provides cops who want to make an arrest and contrast it with the harsh consequences is apparently literary description can impose. Let's start with clothing. Is it torn, stained, or disorderly? You’re drunk. Or how about your attitude? Yes, your attitude. Are you cocky, indifferent, or apologetic? You clearly shouldn't be driving. Or is your speech thick-tongued? I’m not even going to touch that one. Or slow? Again, are charges justified? Just remember, never drive with droopy or watery eyes because that's apparently a crime too. My point is these descriptors are not meant to evaluate a person's condition. They are so utterly subjective. They’re more like a tool to justify an officer's desire to make an arrest. I mean, if you look at the document it looks more like a fictive or ChatGPT writing prompt than an objective assessment of someone's ability to drive. It's a random list of enforcement adjectives, for lack of a better phrase, intended to give cops the illusory pretext for racking up arrests and earning those rewards Stephen was talking about earlier.

Now, this criteria is even more suspect given the technical tools police have at their disposal to determine if someone is drunk. I mean, don't we have blood tests and breathalyzers to figure out if someone is drunk? Can't we find a way to utilize this same technology to more objectively assess a person's ability to drive, especially considering the consequences if they’re charged? Well, I think what we have here is a manifestation of the cultural power conferred to policing that in some ways is much more insidious than the already-consequential ability to arrest and imprison us. An excessive amount of social capital bestowed upon cops makes a questionable form we showed you before not only possible, but in some ways inevitable.

So, what do I mean? Well there's actually a cultural theory that explains this phenomena. It generally applies to advantages of being rich and powerful. I think it merits application to this question as well. It's called the "Hierarchy of Credibility". It was a concept proffered by sociologist, Howard Becker, in an attempt to explain a thorny question, who gets to set the narrative or define the truth about the present conditions in which we live? Whose interpretation of current events is used to set the agenda for policy decisions that affect millions of lives? Becker said that the richer and more powerful person, the more likely their interpretation of current events would be believed and accepted. This process, he argued, led to the perpetuation of the injustice and inequality we see today, where a working class person can toil their entire lives, pay taxes, follow the law, and still end up broke, bankrupt, and homeless just because they got sick.

Police Accountability Report, hosted by Taya Graham and Stephen Janis, is a weekly show that seeks to expose and hold to account one of the most powerful institutions in this country—the police.

I think it also applies to policing because how can you justify destroying a man's life over a baseless allegation, other than by acknowledging that the Hierarchy of Credibility applies to police as well? How can you use such scant evidence to force a man into a cage, out of a job, and into a world where he cannot be hired and will forever be branded a criminal, unless you’ve been bestowed the immeasurable power of cops to brand us unworthy of fairness and justice? I can prove to you just how potent the police version of the Hierarchy of Credibility is. I have the receipts, so to speak, to show you just how this works. To do so, I want to share with you a piece about a very sketchy fundraising scheme that was the subject of a New York Times investigation. You might even be familiar with it because it's primarily facilitated by robocalls.

These calls are made to millions of people every day. During the call, a person whose actually a pre-recorded voice solicits funds from groups with names like The American Police Officers Alliance. The voice asks a person who answered to consider donating to support law enforcement. The pitch is, support cops because they deserve it. Now, the New York Times investigation found that these robocalls raised roughly $89 million over a seven-year period. They also found that the organizations that ran them spent almost nothing on funding the politicians who support policing over the years the fundraisers were the most active. In fact, almost all the money raised was spent on, you guessed it, more fundraising. Oh, and by the way, the Times investigation also found that the organizations that purported to support cops paid hefty fees to political consultants, totalling millions of dollars.

So, we have a fictitious charity making questionable claims able to raise tens or millions of dollars, all while doing nothing to support it's purported cause, a scheme that led thousands of people to donate multiple times without a single iota of proof that the organization had done anything to work on behalf of law enforcement itself. Which brings us back to the concept of this so-called Hierarchy of Credibility, because let's remember, the ruse used to extract money from the unsuspecting donors was simply to invoke the name "police". All they had to do was say the word "cop", and people parted with their money apparently no questions asked, which shows how police fit into the pyramid of credibility because there are few institutions that can prompt you or I to simply turn over cash without explanation. There are even fewer professions so to speak that can literally open your wallet without having to provide anything tangible in exchange.

I think what this example points out is the crucial role police play in reinforcing the Hierarchy of Credibility for the powers that be, and why disseminating copaganda in our media and culture is a vital part of that process, and that by making arrests like what we just witnessed, the police become enforcers who impose essentially a sociology of silence on the working class. That is, through fake arrests, false charges, extortion-level fees and fines, and other impediments police make our stories theirs. They construct a narrative so to speak where our police for justice for equity are sullied by false charges and bogus arrests. It's really an insidious calculus, a method to the madness that enables our system of growing income and wealth inequality to flourish unchecked. It's essentially the scaffolding of our structural divide between the ultra-rich and the rest of us buttress by bad policing.

In a way, police in this capacity amplify the voices of the most powerful, and they do so by telling a tale of us, the people who act indifferent, whose clothes are stained, and whose eyes are watery. If that is the basis to convict us and take our freedom, and sully our future, then we must battle the system that makes it possible. Certainly, on this show, we will continue the fight to do so. I’d like to thank my guest Thomas for joining us, and for sharing his experience with us. Thank you, Thomas. Of course, I have to thank Intrepid Reporter, Stephen Janis, for his writing, research, and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

And I want to thank friend of the show, Nole Dee and Modley CR for their support. Thank you both so much. A very special thanks to our Patreons. We appreciate you. I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next livestream, especially Patreon Associate Producers John ER, David K, Louie P, and super friends, Shane Bushtup, Pineapple Girl, Chris R Matter Writes, and Angela True. I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at [email protected] and share your evidence of police misconduct.

You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram, or @EyesonPolice on Twitter. Of course, you can always message me directly at @TayasBaltimore on Twitter and Facebook. Please like and comment. You know I read your comments, and that I appreciate them. We do have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below for Accountability Reports, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don't run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham, and I am your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please, be safe out there.

Principled journalism that gets to the roots of the crises we face is more important today than ever. Journalism that doesn't dwell in despair, but empowers you to take action. Journalism that movements and organizers need to fight worker exploitation, the climate catastrophe, white supremacy, and more.

We never accept corporate cash and we never hide our content behind restrictive pay walls. But that means we need you to rush a tax-deductible donation or join our growing community of sustaining members who give a little each month to make a big difference to our journalists and contributors.

Even more ways to give...

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

by Taya Graham and Stephen Janis, The Real News Network June 9, 2023

Host & ProducerTaya Graham is an award-winning investigative reporter who has covered U.S. politics, local government, and the criminal justice system. She is the host of TRNN's "Police Accountability Report," and producer and co-creator of the award-winning podcast "Truth and Reconciliation" on Baltimore's NPR affiliate WYPR. She has written extensively for a variety of publications including the Afro American Newspaper, the oldest black-owned publication in the country, and was a frequent contributor to Morgan State Radio at a historic HBCU. She has also produced two documentaries, including the feature-length film "The Friendliest Town." Although her reporting focuses on the criminal justice system and government accountability, she has provided on the ground coverage of presidential primaries and elections as well as local and state campaigns. Follow her on Twitter.

Host & ProducerStephen Janis is an award winning investigative reporter turned documentary filmmaker. His first feature film, The Friendliest Town was distributed by Gravitas Ventures and won an award of distinction from The Impact Doc Film Festival, and a humanitarian award from The Indie Film Fest. He is the co-host and creator of The Police Accountability Report on The Real News Network, which has received more than 10,000,000 views on YouTube. His work as a reporter has been featured on a variety of national shows including the Netflix reboot of Unsolved Mysteries, Dead of Night on Investigation Discovery Channel, Relentless on NBC, and Sins of the City on TV One.

He has co-authored several books on policing, corruption, and the root causes of violence including Why Do We Kill: The Pathology of Murder in Baltimore and You Can't Stop Murder: Truths about Policing in Baltimore and Beyond. He is also the co-host of the true crime podcast Land of the Unsolved. Prior to joining The Real News, Janis won three Capital Emmys for investigative series working as an investigative producer for WBFF. Follow him on Twitter.